903R90013


t                                            CBP/TRS 43/90
*                                               June 1990

     h

     i

              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
              Region III Snfornwlion Resource
              Center (2PM52)
              W Chcstnul Street

                              Chesapeake Bay
                             Living Resources
                              Monitoring Plan


                       First Annual Progress Report
                           Living Resources and Monitoring
                                        Subcommittees
     225
     .C54

     XI4 2
                                     Chesapeake
                                             Bay
                                        Program

-------
                   CBP/TRS 43/90
                     June 1990
      Chesapeake Bay
     Living Resources
      Monitoring Plan


First Annual Progress Report
   Living Resources and Monitoring
               Subcommittees
            Chesapeake
                   Bay
               Program

-------
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources
              Monitoring Plan
          First Annual Progress Report
     Prepared by the Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Monitoring Work Group
                         for the
            Monitoring and Living Resources Subcommittees
                                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                         Region III information Resource
                                         Center (3PM52)
                                         841 Chsstr.ut Street
                                         Philadelphia, PA 19107
                        June 1990
         Printed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
                         for the
                    Chesapeake Bay Program
    Printed on recycled paper

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

      This is the first annual report on progress in implementing the Chesapeake Bay Living
Resources Monitoring Plan (Governance Commitment Number 5 of the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement, adopted July 1988).  The Plan is to be phased in over a three year period
ending in 1991.

      The initial phases of implementation .generally have been successful, and are proceeding
on schedule.

Highlights:

o     With cooperative funding from EPA, NOAA, Maryland and Virginia (1988-1989),
      additional data management staff have been placed at the Chesapeake Bay Liaison
      Office, the Maryland Department of Natrual Resources, and the Virginia Marine
      Resources Commission. Much progress has been made in building the living resources
      component of the Chesapeake Bay data base and in deriving important information
      from long-term data  sets.

o     The Ambient Toxicity Assessment Workshop was held in Annapolis in July 1989,
      with support from NOAA's Office of Coastal Resources Management and the Maryland
      Department of Natural Resources.  The workshop report has been reviewed and
      will be published in the spring of 1990. A work plan for a two-year pilot assessment
      of water and sediment toxicity to fish and invertebrates in natural Bay habitat areas
      has been approved, and work is scheduled to begin in June  1990.

o     A workshop on monitoring of early life stages  of fish (eggs and larvae) was held
      in Baltimore in December  1989.  Scientists, technicians and managers agreed  on
      the principles that should be applied to incorporating ichthyoplankton sampling into
      existing monitoring programs and several specific recommendations. A final report
      of the workshop is available (Houde, 1990), through the EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison
      Office.

o     A task force was established to review the draft Potomac River Living Resources
      Monitoring Plan. A final plan, which provides for better integration of living resources
      and water quality monitoring in the tidal Potomac River, was adopted in 1989, and
      is being  implemented under the  supervision of the  Interstate Commission on the
      Potomac River Basin and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

Funding

      The Monitoring Plan estimate of the total cost of the living resources monitoring
program was $4.01 million per year. Of this amount, $2.26 million was existing  funding,

                                        iii

-------
with about $1.76 million required in additional funds.  Federal and state initiatives have
provided at least $1.20 million, or 68%, of the new money. The remaining funds (about
$550,000) were intended for items (1) which are depending upon workshop recommendations
for their final form, or (2) have been deferred for technical reasons. It appears that large
amounts of new funding above that already  committed will not be required during  1990.
Above all, however, monitoring programs require  stable funding for  many years if they
are to be successful. Some key monitoring components (e.g., SAV surveys) are dependent
upon a patchwork of  cooperative funding each year; most are vulnerable to  changes in
state or Federal priorities.

Conclusions and Recommendations

o      The Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy has made monitoring of tidal and non-tidal
       wetlands a crucial element of the bay restoration. A workshop to develop a wetlands
       monitoring plan is a high priority.

o      Monitoring of oysters, clams and crabs needs to be reviewed fully in light of recent
       research and current management information needs. A monitoring workshop for
       these species also is a high priority.

o      Chesapeake Bay Program FY1990 funds have been budgeted for monitoring workshops.
       The Living Resources Monitoring Workgroup must coordinate with the Wetlands
       Workgroup, the SAV Workgroup, and CBSAC to plan and facilitate workshops, to
       be held during calendar year 1990, to develop specific monitoring recommendations
       for wetlands, shellfish, SAV, juvenile fish, benthos, and plankton.

o      Improved data management and increased attention to long-term living resources
       data sets have  resulted in improved accessibility and reliability of important data
       sets. The CBPCC "Priority Data Sets  Acquisition and Status  Listing" should be
       maintained and periodically updated. The current level of effort in living resources
       data management should be maintained.

o      Computer resources at CBPCC are in need of review.  Some of the living resour-
       ces data sets that have been acquired are  quite large. Disk storage space is satur-
       ated and memory is sometimes inadequate for processing the large data sets efficiently.

o      Although the recommended living resources reporting system  is largely in  place
       (annual program reports, biennial "State of the Bay" Monitoring Report, and oc-
       casional synthesis reports), it has not been formally adopted  or understood as a
       system by all data generators.  Better coordination of data analysis and reporting
       for living resources should be a priority of the Living Resources Subcommitte and
       the Monitoring Subcommittee through  its Data Analysis Work Group.
                                        IV

-------
o     Vigorous efforts have been made over the first year since the adoption of the Living
      Resources Monitoring Plan to address the Plan's objectives.  Comparable efforts
      over the next year will ensure that a complete living resources monitoring program
      will be in place on schedule in 1991.  The chief requirement is that coordination
      be maintained between program elements through continuing review, communication
      and joint reporting.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

      The information contained in this report was compiled primarily by means of a
questionnaire mailed to many Bay Program subcommittee members and agency staff. Patsy
Heasly of EPA CBLO developed and has maintained the tracking matrix (Appendix A)
which has been invaluable in recording and updating current information on the status of
the Program.  The quick  and substantive responses to the questionnaire from all several
people and agencies were most helpful and are appreciated. Computer Sciences Corporation
staff at the Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office have provided much important service to the
monitoring program's data management component  (see Appendixes B and C). Writing,
editing and graphics were the work of Steve Jordan, Pauline Vaas and Lamar Platt, all of
Maryland DNR.

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  	  iii

I. INTRODUCTION	   1

II. STATUS OF THE LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING PROGRAM  ...   1
     Finfish and Shellfish	   2
     Wildlife	   4
     Plant Communities	   4
     Benthic and Planktonic Communities	   5
     Other Living Resources Monitoring	   6

III. DATA MANAGEMENT 	   6

IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS	   13

REFERENCES	   15

APPENDIX A
     LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION
     TRACKING MATRIX	   17

APPENDIX B
     PRIORITY DATA SETS ACQUISITION AND STATUS LISTING
     (LIVING RESOURCES SECTION) 	   33

APPENDIX C
     SAMPLES OF DOCUMENTATION AND CONTENTS FILES
     FROM THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM LIVING RESOURCES
     DATA BASE 	   45
                               vii

-------
Vlll

-------
L INTRODUCTION

      The Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Monitoring Plan (CEC 1988) was developed
to fulfill Governance Commitment Number 5 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement:
"...by July 1988, develop a Bay-wide monitoring plan for selected commercially, recreationally
and ecologically valuable species." The Plan was adopted by the Chesapeake Executive
Council in July 1988 "as a guide to collection of biological data necessary to measure progress
towards meeting the living-resources-ohjectives set forth in the Agreement."  The Council's
adoption statement for the Plan "..direct[s] the Living Resources Subcommittee to work with
the Monitoring Subcommittee to prepare an annual report addressing the progress attained in
meeting the Plan's goals."

      This first annual report is devoted to documenting progress toward implementing
the Plan's recommendations, a process scheduled for completion in 1991. The report also
is a first iteration of the periodic technical review that is required to ensure that the living
resources  monitoring program is meeting its objectives. To gather current information, a
questionnaire was mailed to Work Group and Subcommittee members, as well as key people
in the agencies responsible for biological data collection programs, in early December 1989.
A "tracking matrix"  was developed  to document  the  current  status  of  each  detailed
recommendation in the Plan.  A copy of the tracking  matrix was  mailed with each
questionnaire. Response to the questionnaire was  good;  respondents provided detailed
annotations of the tracking matrix and a number  of substantive comments.

      The remainder of this report is divided into  three major sections: (1) a status report
for Plan recommendations with a discussion of program needs, proposed modifications and
future directions; (2) a description of the living resources data management effort (a high
priority of the Plan), including summaries of key data  sets that have been acquired and
documented by the Bay Program Computer Center as a part of this effort; and (3) a summary
with recommendations. The complete tracking matrix is included as Appendix A. Appendix
B is the Priority Data Acquisitions List (Living Resources Section), which shows the current
status of efforts to acquire, document and summarize data sets and to make them available
to the Chesapeake Bay Program Computer Center  (CBPCC) user community.

II.  STATUS  OF THE LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING PROGRAM

      The Living Resources Monitoring Plan was the  result of an organized attempt to
coordinate biological data collection for all levels of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The
Plan focused on long-term monitoring to obtain status and trends information for important
species and species groups.  The highest priority was assigned to maintaining existing programs
that  generate consistent, long-term data over broad geographical areas.  Improved data
management, seen as the key to making living resources information available and useful
on a baywide basis, was given second priority.  Recommendations for technical reviews of
various monitoring programs and for  new and enhanced monitoring programs were given

-------
lower priorities. With the evolution of the Monitoring Plan into a monitoring/>rogram, priorities
have changed. Major long-term data collection programs have continued, and living resources
data management has been strengthened significantly. Therefore, the highest priorities having
been satisfied, the relative importance of workshops to review programs with respect to their
objectives, technical soundness, and needs for enhancement has increased. In addition some
new data collection elements have received high priority for funding and implementation.
      The following is a rather general discussion of the monitoring program status, although
some specific examples are highlighted. For details, please refer to the tracking matrix
(Appendix A) and the Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Monitoring Plan.

      Monitoring programs for species that are harvested (fish, shellfish and game birds)
have been designed to provide  the kinds of information needed to manage harvests and
protect populations from over-exploitation. Even some species that are not harvested [e.g.
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and wetland plants] have regulatory significance, so
their abundance and distribution need to be monitored. A different, but not necessarily
incompatible, purpose  for biological data collection is evaluation of regional measures to
reduce pollution and protect habitats, which requires monitoring of the Chesapeake ecosystem.
The Monitoring Plan recognized that management of harvestable stocks and management
of the environment had common data needs, and therefore it incorporated elements of existing
fish, shellfish, and waterfowl monitoring.

Finfish

      The major core elements of finfish monitoring are beach seine and trawl surveys.
Routine beach seine surveys have been conducted in Chesapeake Bay tributaries since 1954,
primarily to estimate the number of young-of-the year striped bass. Seine surveys now are
conducted by identical methods in Virginia and Maryland. These surveys provide data on
many species in addition to striped bass. The Monitoring Plan  recommended a detailed
review of the historical data and the targeting of a broader range of species for sampling.
Surveys are now in place for yellow perch (Maryland), shad and herring (Maryland and
Virginia), in addition to striped bass.  The District of Columbia also conducts a general-
ized (multi-species) beach seine survey.  A determined effort has been underway to recover
information on long-term changes in estuarine fish  assemblages from an analysis of the
Maryland Estuarine  Juvenile  Finfish Survey  data. A workshop  will be  held during  1990
to review methods and determine the appropriate ways to use data from seine surveys.

      A baywide trawl survey was initiated as a one-year pilot program by Virginia, Maryland
and the Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) in 1987. Although both
states have  implemented large-scale trawl projects, there has been significant difficulty in
coming to agreement on standard methods. Maryland principal investigators and managers
did not view a generalized trawl survey as cost-effective unless it provided high-resolution

-------
data for  fishery  management purposes.   Therefore, while Virginia has implemented a
standardized trawl program based on the one-year pilot project, Maryland has allotted five
years to methods development. Considerable progress has been made toward overcoming
the inconsistencies. It should be recognized that a program of this magnitude, unprecedented
in the  bay, should pose some difficulties in implementation.  Uniquely comprehensive
information on the abundance and distribution of fish is being generated as a result of
these surveys.  The trawl program will require intensive periodic review by CBSAC and
its technical-working -groups to determine-if th& program~is~meeting-its-objectives.

       Supplementary trawl programs are continuing in Maryland, Virginia and the District
of Columbia. Improved data management and communication have been established between
the jurisdictions and will help to make the data more useful on a baywide basis.

       A workshop was held in Annapolis in December 1989 to review monitoring and
research  needs for early life stages of fish, as recommended by the Monitoring Plan. The
Final Report (Houde, 1990) was distributed in May 1990.  Two major questions about
ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) monitoring were addressed: (1) should ichthyoplankon
be monitored  as a part of the bay water quality and plankton monitoring program; and
(2) is monitoring of anadromous ichthyoplankton more effective than alternative methods
of obtaining information on processes that affect recruitment of these species.  Three of
the several recommendations from the report are highlighted here.

       1.  The present monitoring schedule and  efforts in the Bay are not adequate to
       survey the spawning areas and times of anadromous fishes."

       2. "...selected, archived plankton samples from the Bay Monitoring Program [should]
       be examined and analyzed for ichthyoplankton to determine if the sampling design
       is adequate to evaluate abundances and spatio-temporal distributions of selected
       species  [primarily bay anchovy, hogchoker and naked goby]."

       3.  "...ichthyoplankton research  [primarily for anadromous species] has a role in
       studies  of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and in fisheries management.. Proposed
       research projects on early life stages of fishes must stand on their own merits and
       be considered  on a project-by-project basis."

       In consideration of  the workshop  recommendations, Living Resources Monitoring
Plan recommendations FES1-FES3 (see Appendix A, page 2) should be dropped, and FES4
should be deferred pending evaluation of archived ichthyoplankton samples. Current early
life stage surveys should be subject to workshop recommendation 3 (above).

Shellfish

-------
      Long-term oyster and blue crab monitoring programs are continuing in Maryland
and Virginia. The states and CBSAC have supported research on the best methods for
obtaining data on oyster abundance and recruitment, and have initiated a cooperative blue
crab stock assessment project. Both projects have included analysis of long-term monitoring
data.  The chief monitoring issue for blue crabs, aside from fishery dependent and research
data needs, is to obtain "Reliable estimates of year class strength at several key stages in the
life history" (Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Management Plan; CEC 1989, page 12). The blue
crab stock-assessment-project should-be-expected to develop recommendations for methods
by which Maryland and Virginia can obtain these estimates annually.

      The Living Resources Monitoring Work Group and the Monitoring Subcommittee
have put a high priority on a shellfish monitoring workshop to be held in 1990.  Recent
research results will be helpful in developing recommendations for improved  monitoring
of oyster recruitment, adult stocks, and diseases. Needs for measuring the abundance and
recruitment of hard clams and soft clams should be evaluated during the workshop.

Wildlife

      Long-term surveys  of waterfowl, colonial  birds, shore and seabirds, raptors, and
sea turtles are continuing. Recommendations for improved information exchange and expanded
use of wildlife data are being implemented partially through the development of the Waterfowl
Management Plan (CEC 1990).  Historical waterfowl trends have been analyzed and the
results included in the Waterfowl Management Plan.

Plant Communities

      Baywide aerial and ground surveys of SAV will continue in 1990.  A multi-year
monitoring strategy will be developed pursuant to the SAV Implementation Plan (to be
published July 1990). The strategy should be developed in enough detail so that a monitoring
program can be implemented without a lot of additional development. Funding for annual
SAV surveys continues to be problematic and should be addressed in the Management Plan.
Second  tier (habitat) monitoring of SAV, which has provided valuable information on water
quality requirements for SAV, has been enhanced and is providing a significant component
of the SAV technical synthesis report now under development and scheduled for publication
in July  1990.

      The Monitoring Subcommittee assigned the highest priority to a wetlands monitoring
workshop, which will be held in 1990.  Guidelines for long-term monitoring of tidal and
non-tidal wetlands are  included in the draft Wetlands Policy Implementation Plan.

-------
Benthic and Planktonic Communities

      Monitoring  of lower trophic  levels (phytoplankton,  zooplankton,  and benthic
organisms) was established in  1984 as the ecosystem component of the  comprehensive
baywide water quality monitoring program, in some cases building on earlier state monitoring
programs. These ecologically oriented programs are important elements of living resources
monitoring.  In general, the Monitoring  Plan recommended their continuation, in some
cases with-enhancements.- All were-recemmended for review to ensure their consistency
and comparability among jurisdictions.

      Phytoplankton, zooplankton and benthic monitoring has continued as recommended.
After a thorough review of the benthic monitoring program in Maryland, it was decided
to reduce the number of stations. The discontinued stations were those originally established
to monitor the effects of power plants on Bay habitats. Reviewers decided that these effects
now were well known and that additional  data collection for this purpose was unnecessary.
Maryland now maintains a network of benthic monitoring stations comparable in geographic
scope to the Virginia network.

      Some recommended enhancements to monitoring of phytoplankton and zooplankton
have been determined not to be cost effective,  or problematic for technical reasons. As
a specific example, pilot efforts to monitor picoplankton (the smallest of floating organisms,
including  bacteria) have shown that gathering  detailed data for  this group is  expensive
and technically demanding.  For the present, it is recommended that picoplankton analysis
should be the province of research in the Chesapeake Bay and not incorporated into routine
monitoring.  Photosynthetic picoplankton are included in  biomass estimates  derived from
routine fluorometric measurements of chlorophyll during water quality monitoring cruises.
Another example  of  a recommended enhancement determined not to be cost effective is
size fractionation of chlorophyll measurements.

      Other recommended enhancements to plankton monitoring have been implemented.
For example, Virginia has added in vivo fluorescence and primary production measure-
ments to its mainstem monitoring program. Maryland has added fluorescence measurements
to its Potomac River cruises.

      Recommendations for formal workshops to develop consensus  methods for baywide
monitoring of plankton and benthos have been revised in favor of meetings of principal
investigators to improve (1) data comparability between jurisdictions, (2) data management,
and (3) reporting and synthesis of information.  These meetings will  be held during 1990,
and should be held on a periodic (e.g. annual or biennial) basis subsequently.

-------
Other Living Resources Monitoring

      The Monitoring Plan recommended increased attention to the problems of toxic body
burdens and ambient water and sediment toxicity to living resources.  The adoption of
the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy (CEC 1988) and the formation of
a Toxics Subcommittee  by the Chesapeake Bay Program have facilitated the implementa-
tion of these recommendations.  A nationally attended workshop was held in Annapolis
in July 1989 to assist in the-development of-an Ambient-Toxicky Assessment and Monitoring
Program.  The workshop report has been reviewed and will be published  in spring 1990.
State and Federal funds have been committed to a two-year pilot program to validate methods
and to begin to assess  the extent of ambient toxicity problems in selected areas of the
Chesapeake Bay (Elizabeth, Patapsco and Potomac Rivers). A work plan for the pilot project
was completed in January 1990.  Important tissue toxics burden data sets have been identified
and the process of acquisition  and documentation by CBPCC was initiated in 1989  (for
an example, see Appendix C).

      'Tributary Ecosystem Monitoring", conceived in the Monitoring Plan  as an approach
to better understanding of anthropogenic effects on the estuarine ecosystem, has been
implemented on a pilot basis in Maryland.   The project is focusing on the abundance,
diversity, health, and  species complement of finfish assemblages as indicators of biological
integrity of several tributary areas. A work plan is  being prepared for continuation  and
possible expansion of this effort.  Existing tributary trawl and seine survey data from Virginia
may provide equivalent information; this analysis should be pursued.

      As recommended, a task force was established to review the draft  Potomac River
Living Resources  Monitoring Plan. A  final plan, which provides for  better integration of
living resources and water quality monitoring in  the tidal Potomac River, was  adopted in
1989, and is being implemented under the supervision of the Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin and the Metropolitan Washington Council  of Governments.

m. DATA MANAGEMENT

      Four people were added to the  Computer Sciences Corporation staff at CBPCC in
early  1989 for the sole purpose of improving living resources data  management.   The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission have added staff or contributed
existing staff to this effort. These resources have made it possible to develop the living
resources section of the Priority Data Sets Acquisition and Status Listing (Appendix B) and
to begin acquisition, documentation, and incorporation of important data into the CBPCC
data base (Table  I).

-------
Table I.  Status  of acquiring, documenting, and incorporating living resources data
sets into the CBPCC data base. Some of these data sets have required a large amount
of programming, research and quality assurance work.
  Listed    Acquired    Computerized      Documented        Completed

     78           25           19                 12                 11
      The improvements in living resources data management since the adoption of the
Monitoring Plan have enabled the initiation of rigorous analyses of long-term trends and
geographical patterns in the abundance and condition of fish, shellfish, SAV, and plankton.
These efforts, quite successful so far, must continue so that the wealth of biological data
that is being collected in the Bay can be transformed into information useful to managers,
scientists, and the public. It should be noted that the formation of a comprehensive, reliable
data base has been a goal of the CBP since its inception; to continue to build and maintain
this information resource will require continuing commitments of staff, equipment and dollars
by the CBP partners.

      Examples of documentation and data summaries from some of the data sets that
have been incorporated into the  CBP data base are appended to this report (Appendix C):
(1) Baywide commercial fish landings 1929-1988;  (2) Mussel watch toxic body burden data
from the NOAA National Status and Trends Monitoring Program; (3) Combined Maryland
and Virginia juvenile fish (beach seine) data 1954-1988 partial time  series for Virginia);
and (4)  The Maryland Adult Striped Bass Survey 1981-1988.  Graphics which display the
contents of these four data sets are presented below.  These graphics are  not  intended
to be analytical  tools; they were selected to show  in the simplest form the types and ranges
of data  that now are available to CBPCC users.

-------
         FISH  LANDINGS  FOR  CHESAPEAKE BAY
      30O
   0)
   Q
   O
   Q.

   U.
   O
      100
   d
   5
                          CATCH

                       — VALUE
       a
       1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
                                                   130

                                                   120


                                                   110


                                                   100


                                                   90

                                                   80


                                                   70

                                                   60

                                                   50


                                                   40

                                                   30
                                                zd 20
                                               V)
                                               cc
1990
                                              O
                                              a
                                              u.
                                              O


                                              O
                                   YEAR
Fig.l Time series of the data set FISHLAND.SSD which contains records of weight and value
of all fish commercially harvested in the Chesapeake Bay. Total catch is the sum of Maryland
and Virginia landings. Menhaden were deleted from  the time series because changes in the
reporting methods for the species caused spurious trends in the data.

-------
  MEAN  PCB  CONCENTRATION
        IN  OYSTER  TISSUE
      MOUNTAIN POINT BAR
180
160
140
120
>
Q
O
0
z
100
 80
 60
 40
 20
    PCB  PCB PCB  PCB  PCB  PCB  PCB PCB
     23456789
    NUMBER OF CHLORINE ATOMS PER MOLECULE
      Fig. 2. Mean concentrations of eight PCB congeners in
      oyster tissue. Samples were collected in 1986-1988 at
      Mountain Point Bar, near the mouth of the Magothy
      River, as part og the NOAA Mussel Watch monitoring
      program. Concentrations are shown in parts per billion
      (ng/g) of dry tissue.

-------
           SEINE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA
     SPECIES
ATLANTIC MENHADE
ATLANTIC SILVERS
BAY ANCHOVY
SPOT
WHITE PERCH
SPOTTAIL SHINER
HOGCHOKER
MUMMICHOG
EASTERN SILVERY
ATLANTIC CROAKER
TIDEWATER SILVER
BANDED KILLIFISH
SATINFIN SHINER
TESSELLATED DART
ROUGH SILVERSIDE
GIZZARD SHAD
BLUEBACK HERRING
AMERICAN SHAD
STRIPED KILLIFIS
BLUEGILL
STRIPED MULLET
CHANNEL CATFISH
WHITE CATFISH
GOLDEN SHINER
ATLANTIC NEEDLEF
AMERICAN EEL
YELLOW PERCH
SUMMER FLOUNDER
PUMPKINSEED
WEAKFISH
ALEWIFE
HARVESTFISH
BLUEFISH
             0.01    0.10    1.00    10.00  100.001000.00

                            MEAN COUNT
10

-------
          SEINE  SURVEY  IN MARYLAND
      SPECIES
 ATLANTIC MENHADE
 ATLANTIC SILVERS
 BLUEBACK HERRING
 WHITE PERCH
 SPOT
 ROUGH SILVERSIDE
 BAY ANCHOVY
 SPOTTAIL SHINER
 STRIPED KILLIFIS
 ALEWIFE
 GIZZARD SHAD
 HOGCHOKER
 TIDEWATER SILVER
 MUMMICHOG
SILVERY MINNOW
SATINFIN SHINER
CHANNEL CATFISH
ATLANTIC NEEDLEF
BLUEFISH
STRIPED ANCHOVY
TESSELLATED DART
YELLOW PERCH
AMERICAN SHAD
BANDED KILLIFISH
CARP
PUMPKINSEED
SUMMER FLOUNDER
AMERICAN EEL
GOLDEN SHINER
WHITE CATFISH
HARVESTFISH
BLUEGILL
Fig. 3. Mean count by species
of juvenile fish  collected in-.
seine survey in Maryland and
Virginia  in   1980.  Data
extracted   from   the  file
MDVAJIND.SSD   which  is
used  to calculate the striped
bass juvenile index. Thirty-two
species in Maryland arid thirty-
one species in  Virginia,  in
addition to those shown, were
caught in the seine survey in
19SO in low numbers. Species
other than striped bass  and
white  perch may not have
been captured in proportion to
their true abundance.
              0.01     0.10     1.00    10.00   100.001000.00
                               MEAN COUNT
                                                                  11

-------
          SPECIES
     ATLANTIC NEJHADE
          MOTE PERCH
      CHAMCL CATFISH
         CIZZAROSHAD
              ALEHFE
     BLUEBACK KRRIN6
        HflTE CATFISH
      HNTER aOUNDER
     WITH BASS X STR
             BLUEFISH
             gAXFISH
            HOOHOKER
                 CARP
        AMERICAN SHAD
            BLUE CRAB
       BLACK SEA BASS
     NORTHERN SEAROBI
         YELLW PERCH
      SUNHER FLOUNDER
       BROW BULLHEAD
                 SPOT
         MOTE SUCKER
         HICKORY SHU)
     ATLANTIC STURGEO
       THCADFIN SHAD
                    10
                   FISfMUMSUN

                        118861
                        37056
                        27593
                         9677
                         3908
                         2240
                         1716
                         1318
                          447
                          405
                          382
                          366
                          303
                          266
                          230
                          203
                          166
                          164
                          113
                           90
                           74
                           47
                           42
                           36
                           23
                           20
10000
100000
                                                COUNT
           Fig. 4. Total abundances by species caught in the Maryland gill net survey of adult fishes in the
           Chesapeake Bay during 1981-1988. The data were extracted from the file MDSTBASS.SSD. The
           survey is used to monitor striped bass stocks. Other species may not be captured in proportion
           to their actual abundance.
12

-------
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
      The Living Resources Monitoring Plan has been very successful in generating the
attention,  funding and work required to establish a consistent and productive biological
monitoring program for Chesapeake Bay.  No plan of its scope could or should be implemented
in ultimate detail, however.  It is natural that some of the original recommendations should
have been-found unneeessary-or even unrealistic.- The recommendations that have been
modified as a result of this review generally were intended as refinements  to core monitor-
ing elements and thus were not central to the program.

      The various workshops planned for 1990 to provide long-term direction for several
core elements of the monitoring program will be critical to the quality of data generated
and the credibility of the program.  They must involve those who are the immediate data
generators (i.e.,  field biologists and technicians) as well as scientists who understand the
bay ecosystem and the need for monitoring the biotic results of the bay restoration campaign.
The workshop reports must contain  specific and detailed recommendations  that can be
incorporated into new and existing surveys.

      The Monitoring Plan es-
timate of the total cost of the
living resources monitoring pro-
gram was  $4.01 million per year.
Of this amount, $2.26 million was
existing funding, with about $1.76
million  required in  additional
funds. The current cost and fund-
ing estimates that follow are very
approximate;  some  costs have
increased  since  the  Monitoring
Plan  was adopted,  and  some
"new" costs have been absorbed
by  existing programs.  Federal
and state initiatives have provid-
ed at least $1.20  million, or 68%,
of the new money. The remaining
funds (about $550,000) were intended for items (1) which are depending upon workshop
recommendations for their final form, or (2) have been deferred for technical reasons. The
most substantial new funding items were additional data management staff, supported by
the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program and the States (estimated at $234,000),  and the am-
bient toxicity  assessment pilot project ($400,000 for two years).
LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING
            Funding
       Projected 1991 Told - $4.01M
   ($550, OOP)
                         | Existing FY 19B8 j
                         ($2, 260, 000)
                                                                                13

-------
Recommendations
      o      The Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy (CEC 1989) has made monitoring of
             tidal  and non-tidal wetlands a crucial  element of the bay restoration.  A
             workshop to develop a wetlands monitoring plan is a high priority.

      o      Monitoring of oysters, clams and crabs needs to be reviewed fully in light
          -  of recent research and current management information needs. A monitoring
             workshop for these species also is a high priority.

      o      Chesapeake Bay Program FY 1990 funds have been budgeted for monitoring
             workshops. The Living Resources Monitoring Workgroup must coordinate with
             the Wetlands Workgroup, the SAV Workgroup, and CBSAC to plan and facilitate
             workshops, to be held during calendar year 1990, to develop specific monitoring
             recommendations for wetlands, shellfish, SAV, and juvenile fish.

      o      Improved  data  management and increased  attention to long-term living
             resources data sets have resulted in improved accessibility and reliability of
             important data sets. The CBPCC "Priority Data Sets Acquisition and Status
             Listing" (Appendix B) should be maintained and periodically updated.  The
             current level of effort in living resources data management also should be
             maintained.

      o      Computer resources at CBPCC are in need of review.  Some  of the living
             resources data sets that have been acquired  are quite large.  Disk storage
             space is saturated and memory is sometimes  inadequate for processing the
             large data sets efficiently.

      o      Although the recommended living resources  reporting system is largely in
             place (annual program reports, biennial "State of the Bay" Monitoring Report,
             and occasional synthesis reports), it has not been formally adopted or understood
             as a system by all data generators. Better coordination of data analysis and
             reporting for living resources should be a priority of  the Living Resources
             Subcommittee's Monitoring  Work Group and the Monitoring Subcommittee
             through its Data Analysis Work Group.

      o      Vigorous efforts have been made over the first year since the adoption of
             the Living Resources Monitoring Plan to address  the Plan's objectives.
 14

-------
            Comparable efforts over the next year will ensure that a complete living resources
            monitoring program will be in place on schedule in 1991. The chief requirement
            is that coordination be maintained between program elements through continuing
            review, communication and joint reporting.
REFERENCES

Chespeake Executive Council.  1988a. Living Resources Monitoring Plan.  Bay Agreement
      Commitment Document, July 1988.7

ibid. 1988b. Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy. Bay Agreement Commitment Document,
      December 1988.

ibid. 1989a. Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Management Plan. Agreement Commitment Report,
      July 1989.

ibid. 1989b. Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy. Agreement Commitment Report, July 1989.

ibid. 1990.  Chesapeake Bay Waterfowl management Plan. Agreement Commitment Document.
      In review.

Chesapeake Bay Program 1990. Ichthyoplankton Monitoring and Reseearch on the Chesapeake
      Bay: Proceedings of a  Workshop,  5  December  1989,  Baltimore, MD.
      Unpublished final report to The Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
      Tidewater Administration, Annapolis, MD.
    ^Chesapeake Executive Council documents available from USEPA, Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office, Annapolis, MD.

                                                                             15

-------
                APPENDIX A
LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION
              TRACKING MATRIX
                                                  17

-------
                                 M£8#
                                 •o -1  4J fi

5? CO    -H
^o.   ..-5
43 G  rH Ijl
-r3  A!

                                                       
-------
  n
  P
         WJ V    VI U  W
         41 6    O O  Q>

         sH   g§  0
§
•H
ti.

IS
I
.
t
                    O
                    01
en

-v
r-
                                   o

                                   43

                                    i t>

                                    I 1
                             ID



                             »

                            bg.
                                         -8
                                           a
                                          n 41
                                                       SS1!
                                                       o id 
-------
                   !
                   £
                                    CO  M
                 1
                              !
                                                                o
                                                                Ol
o
01
I
 8-
<§
                          CO
                          ~^

                          t-
                    K

                    T
                    q
                    II
t
                    t
                    t
                                                                                                            : 1-1
                                                                                                            LJSl
                                                                                                u
                                                                                                to
                                                                                                to
20

-------
o.

tJ
      CO

      r-
                  
                                                        00
                                                                       
-------
                    Id  «
                                                                                                                  3

                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                  I
                    *-i


                    I
5
I
 8-
5

                                           !
                        c
                        R
                        t


                       T

                       -i-



                       1

                        01
                        a
                        4
                        a:
                                                  6

                                                 I
               2
               o
               4J
22

-------
1
                                                                     i-3
                                                                   !JS'
!
                                       CD
                                       CO
                                                00
                                                \
                                                t~
I
I
 n
 a


 1
a;
 c
                                                                                                    23

-------
                     CO

                     I
                     JJ
                     OT
                                        O

                                        \
                                        !>•
                                                             s
O

\
r~
                        •5
CO
•^
r*
                      I
                                           a o
                                                                                                  a

                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                  o
24

-------
eh
00
                                               B tr>
              -H
              JJ

              I
§>
5
o>
00
                                                                 BtJ

o
O!
in
(PP)


Init
                                                                                      25

-------
                    1
                       o

                        c
                        (1

                       o

                        o
                        t
                        (


                       i

                        o
                        a
                                a  o
                             :35
O)

00
01
oo
                                                                                         I

                                                                                         JS
                                                                                          H
                                                                                          T)



                                                                                          0


                                                                                          a
                                               a,  o  o  M
                                               a.  o  o  a
                              ft



                             1
1


I
                                                                                                            M
                                                                                                   O -Jf tn o
                                                                                                      o  q 
                                                                                                      0,4J 01
                                                                      o « i -      .
                                                                   o « TJ —    a
                                                                   jj o       «i a
                                                                      0 14 T5  -H JJ
                                                                   Soi iti S q  n S
                                                                .  -y ^ -y 3  >ir
                                                                 o>  i
                     3
                                                                       \    .
                                                                         °
*^
   s  «r
                                                                                                                       u
           O)

           ao
                                                                                             '  ft
26

-------
3
3

£
                       a
                                  >JS-a
           o>
           00
O
01
O

O»
s
I
01
oo
\

a
§
•ri



I
I

CM
                                                                                             21

-------
                                                                                                a
                     I
                                     
I


I
                      §
                      1
                      t
                      m
                      i
                      t
                      l

                      I
                      m
                      <
                      t
                                                                  •H 4J
28

-------
I
       •8
01
00
                       •H
                       4J
                                       Cn I
                                      ot
                                      CO
                          01
                          CO
                                                             I
                                                              »)
                                                              41

                                                              I
                                                              tn

                                                             I
                                                              M
                                                             5
en
CO
                                                                                                                29

-------
             I
                                .g
                               «sh'-
                              •H J>  CO

                               §s.gn
                              •P    U 4->
                                n) » -H o

                              ijJSd
                               3 ft 4J H 0,
                                                !.g
                                                        T3



                                                        I'
                                                              » "
                                                           2 .a 
                                                                       m
                                                                       oo
              e

              I
              a





              a
              a
              a;

              c
                                                          •n I

                                                          1-
                      I
                      I
                                                     4J
                                                     n
                                                     I
30

-------
oo
oo
1
!
OD
CD
                                              3
en
oo
                                                                           en
                                                                           oo
                                                                                        : 
-------
                 I
                 fl)  0
                 u
                 I
                   3
                   cu
                           
-------
                   APPENDIX B
PRIORITY DATA SETS ACQUISITION AND STATUS LISTING
           (LIVING RESOURCES SECTION)
                                                      33

-------
               ana

               '•5i
    i 4J J ^ ">
1 0)  o rt n o o
 > .-I w * o -H IH
i -H !? g - -H S >J
1111*
 •H -H -
.gti*
34

-------
H i
              Ol

              00
                                                           01

                                                           00
                                                           O)
                                                           00
              01
              00
              01
              oo
              oo
              eg
                                                           Ol
                                                           oo
                                                           ro
                                                           \
                                                           00
                                                                       w         w
                                                                                                                    35

-------
36

-------
vi
                                                        en
                                                        o>
                                                        o
                                                        n
                                                                         37

-------
38

-------
39

-------
40

-------
41

-------
                                          w o
                                          D ft
                    8.
42

-------
18?
18'
                     04    .0        O   M   N
                     co    S   H    *   H   H   co
                     r-    a   oo    a   oo   3   r-
                     cvi   Ja    §
        Ol
        oo
                                                                                  43

-------
                    II  3
44

-------
                                       APPENDIX C
              SAMPLES OF DOCUMENTATION AND CONTENTS FILES
                                           FROM
      THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM LIVING RESOURCES DATA BASE
                                                  PROCESSING ORGANIZATION:
                                                  Maryland Department of Natural Resources
                                                —Tidewater-Administration, Fisheries Division
                                                  Tawes State Office Building
                                                  Annapolis, MD  21401
                                                  (301)974-3784
                                                  CONTACTS: Phil Jones, Cluney Stagg

                                                  PR | PROGRAM SPONSOR, CONTRACT, PROJECT, OR
                                                  EXPERIMENT NAME
                                                  Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
                                                  Tidewater Administration, Fisheries Division
                                                  Tawes State Office Building
                                                  Annapolis, MD  21401
                                                  CONTRACT: DNR Contract No. F12/81/006
                                                  PROJECT: Assessment of the Population Dynamics of Important
                                                  Commercial or Recreational Fish in Chesapeake Bay.

                                                  PC | PROJECT COST AND DATES WHEN STUDY WAS
                                                  CONDUCTED
                                                  Cost:            Study Dates:  1982 - 1984

                                                  AB | ABSTRACT
                                                     The data set, FISHLAND.SSD, contains annual landings
                                                  data for 120 commercial categories of finfish and shellfish from
                                                  the Chesapeake Bay, 1929 - 1988. The landings are stored by
                                                  state and by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) water
                                                  code. . . [much more].

FISH LANDING DATA 1929 - 1988
CONTENTS OF SAS DATA SET SYS$DATAl:[CRnTERS.FINnSH]FISHLAND.SSD
1.  A portion of the documentation of fisheries
landings data for Chesapeake -Bay, available on-
line to users  of the Chesapeake Bay Computer
Center.

DS | DATA SET NAME
SYSSDATA1: [CRITTERS.FINFISH] FISHLAND.SSD

TI | PROJECT TITLE
Chesapeake Bay Finfish Landings, 1929 - 1988, by NMFS
Water Code and State.

PI | PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
Christopher F. Bonzek and Philip W. Jones

PO | COLLECTING OR PROCESSING ORGANIZATION
COLLECTING ORGANIZATION:
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies
University of Maryland
Solomons, MD  20688
(301)326-4281
CONTACT: Dr. Brian Rothschild
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 222150
                                             NUMBER OF VARIABLES: 12
#
4
11
8
10
5
7
2
9
6
12
1
3
VARIABLE
CATCH LB
COUNTY
GEAR
LBL
MONTH
SEGMENT
SOURCE
SPEC COD
TXCODE
VALUE D
WATERCOD
YEAR
TYPE LE
NUM 4
CHAR 2
CHAR 2
CHAR 35
NUM 4
CHAR 5
CHAR 8
CHAR 12
NUM 4
NUM 4
CHAR 5
NUM 4
                         —ALPHABETIC LIST OF VARIABLES AND ATTRIBUTES	
                                  IB      POSITION     LABEL
                                           17
                                           83
                                           34
                                           48
                                           21
                                           29
                                           5
                                           36
                                           25
                                           85
                                           0
                                           13
                                                         TOTAL POUNDS OF FISH
                                                         COUNTY CODE
                                                         CBP GEAR CODE
                                                         TAXONOMIC NAME OF FISH
                                                         MONTH
                                                         CBP SEGMENT DESIGNATION
                                                         DATA SET SOURCE
                                                         NOAA/NODC TAXONOMIC CODE
                                                         NMFS TAXONOMIC CODE
                                                         VALUE OF FISH CATCH IN DOLLARS
                                                         STATE + NOAA WATER CODE
                                                         YEAR
                                                                                          45

-------
2. A portion of the data documentation from the
Mussel Watch program data file.

DS*| DATA SET NAME
 SYS$DATA1:[RESOURCE]MSL_BIV.SSD

TI*| PROJECT TITLE
National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental
Quality: Mussel Watch Project.

PI* | PRINCIPAL-INVESTIGATOR(S)
Louis W. Butler, NOAA (Principal Investigator) (301)
443-8655
James Price, NOAA (Data Submissions Contact) (301) 443-8655
Gunnar Lauenstein, NOAA (Asst. Contract Officer/Mussel
WatchjContract  Officer/Speciman Banking)   (301) 443-8655
John Tokar, NOAA (Quality Assurance)

PO*| COLLECTING OR PROCESSING ORGANIZATION
(address, telephone number, and contact, if different from principal
investigator)
National  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Ocean  Assessments Division
Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment
Rockwall Building
11400 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852

Battelle Memorial Institute
Duxbury Operations
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332
Robert Hillman (617) 934-0571
Carol Teven (Organics Analysis)

PR* | PROGRAM SPONSOR, CONTRACT, PROJECT, OR
EXPERIMENT NAME (include project officer, address, and telep-
hone number, if applicable)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Ocean  Assessments Division
Office  of Oceanography and Marine Assessment
Rockwall Building
11400 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
301-443-8655 (Jim Price)

PC | PROJECT COST AND DATES WHEN STUDY WAS
CONDUCTED

Cost:          Study Dates: 1986-present
(data set: 1986-1988)

AB*| ABSTRACT (Description of project, including purpose,
objectives, hypothesis, results, and conclusions)
Program Description:   The National Oceanic and Atmosphe-
ric Administration (NOAA) National Status and Trends (NS&T)
Program makes a wide range of environmental measurements
to assess impacts of human activity on coastal and estuarine
regions. The Mussel Watch project is a component of the NS&T
program in which chemical contaminants in sediments and bivalve
tissues are assessed at 150 sites nationwide.  This program is
similar to that originally sponsored between 1976 and 1978 by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is expected that
information from the NS&T Program will provide a basis for
setting priorities for management action and for documenting
changes that occur because of such actions.  It is the intention
of the program to quantify general areas in terms of contamina-
tion levels and it is important  to note that sites selected for
sampling are deliberately NOT near point sources of contamina-
tion.  Management action on any individual point source will
not be recognized in the NS&T data  unless that source exerts
a strong influence on environmental quality over a relatively large
area.  On the other hand, the NS&T program will identify the
combined influence of many point and non-point sources of con-
tamination to  an area.  Six Mussel Watch sites are located in
the  Chesapeake Bay, and  are the focus of this data set. Three
of these were also sampled between 1976 and 1978 through the
EPA program.  The American Oyster is  the target species in
the  Bay.   Selected Mussel Watch samples are stored at the
National Bureau  of Standards  through the NS&T Program's
Specimen Banking project for potential future research.

Parameters:
         A). Bottom Sediment and  Bivalve Tissue:
                  Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH's)
                  Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's)
                  Additional Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
                  Aluminum
                  Silicon
                  Chromium
                  Manganese
                  Iron
                  Nickel
                  Copper
                  Zinc
                  Arsenic
                  Selenium
                  Tin
                  Antimony
                  Silver
                  Cadmium
                  Mercury
                  Thallium
                  Lead
          B). Sediment only:
                  Grain Size
                  Total Organic Carbon/Carbonate
                  Chemical  Sewage Tracer
          C). Bivalve Tissue only:
                  Size
                  Weight
                  Gonadal/Somatic Index
                  Percent Lipids
 46

-------
3. A portion of the documentation and complete
contents  for the merged Maryland and Virginia
seining survey data set

DS | DATA SET NAME

SYS$DATA1:[RESOURCE]MDVAJIND.SSD

This data set replaces both SYS$DATA1: [RESOURCE] VA-
SEINE.SSDANDSYS$DATA1:[RESOURCE]JIND5786.SSD.
The two data sets were merged to create MDVAJIND.SSD

VIRGINIA data (formerly VASEINE.SSD)
DS | DATA SET NAME
 FORMERLY SYS$DATA1: [RESOURCE]VASEINE.SSD
MERGED WITH MARYLAND (JIND5786) TO CREATE
MDVAJIND.SSD

TI | PROJECT TITLE
Virginia Juvenile Striped Bass Seine Survey.

PI | PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
James A. Colvocoresses

PO | COLLECTING OR PROCESSING ORGANIZATION
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
(804) 642-7307
PR |  PROGRAM SPONSOR, CONTRACT, PROJECT, OR
EXPERIMENT NAME
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Region, Division Federal Aid
Gloucester, MA 01930
CONTACT: Harry Mears (617-281-3600)

PC |  PROJECT COST AND DATES WHEN STUDY WAS
CONDUCTED
Cost:   Study Dates:  1967-1973, 1980-1985

AB_|  ABSTRACT
Project is an annual survey of juvenile striped bass abundance
conducted each summer in the Virginia nursery grounds (James,
York, and Rappahannock drainages). Sampling is done at fixed
stations visited at regular intervals July-Sept. Collections are
made using a 100', 1/4" bar mesh beach seine, and supportive
hydrographic meteorological data  are recorded with each
collection.  All fish captured are identified and counted with
representative subsampks measured for each species. The primary
objective of the survey is to generate an annual index of young-o-
f-year striped bass abundance as an early measure of year class
strength. Data are also analyzed to examine relationships between
juvenile abundance and environmental parameters, interspeci-
fic interactions, and trends in abundance of other species.

[The Maryland Estuarine Juvenile Finfish Survey
also  is documented for this data set; the text has
not been included for the purpose of brevity.]
CONTENTS OF SAS DATA SET SYS$DATA1:[RESOURCE]MDVAJIND.SSD
JUVENILE INDEX DATA 1957 - 1986 MARYLAND (JIND5786) AND VIRGINIA (VASEINE) NUMBER
OF OBSERVATIONS: 58271    NUMBER OF VARIABLES: 36
#
13
14
10
23
16
21
12
32
34
25
36
24
35
8
31
9
22
VARIABLE
BOTTYPEl
BOTTYPE2
CLOUD
CNT
DATE
DISOFFS
GEAR
LAT
LBL
LEN MAX
LEN MEN
LEN MIN
LEN MM
LIFE" STG
LONG
PRECIP K
REP NUM
TYPE LE
CHAR 2
CHAR 2
CHAR 1
NUM 4
NUM 4
NUM 4
CHAR 2
NUM 4
CHAR 30
NUM 4
NUM 4
NUM 4
NUM 4
CHAR 2
NUM 4
CHAR 2
NUM 4
                         —ALPHABETIC LIST OF VARIABLES AND ATTRIBUTES	
                                    FH      POSITION     LABEL
                                             59
                                             61
                                             53
                                             113
                                             85
                                             105
                                             57
                                             155
                                             171
                                             121
                                             205
                                             117
                                             201
                                             49
                                             151
                                             51
                                             109
        PRIMARY BOTTOM SEDIMENT TYPE
        SECONDARY BOTTOM SEDIMENT TYPE
        CLOUD COVER CODE
        NUMBER PER SAMPLE
        SAMPLE DATE
        DISTANCE OFFSHORE [M]
        GEAR CODE
        STATION LATITUDE [DEC DEG]
        TAXONOMIC NAME
        MAXIMUM LENGTH [MM]
        MEAN LENGTH IN MM
        MINIMUM LENGTH [MM]
        LENGTH [MM]
        LIFE STAGE CODE
        STATION LONGITUDE
        PRECIPITATION CODE
        REPLICATE NUMBER
                                                                                               47

-------
11
26
19
2
29
20
30
15
4
33
6
28
27
5
17
3
1
7
18
REP TYPE
ROUND
SALIN
SAMPLEID
SAV_P
SECCHI
SEGMENT
SITE
SOURCE
SPEC COD
SPEC COM
STATION
TDEPTH
TIDE
TIME
TXCODE
WINDIR
WINDSPD
WTEMP
CHAR 3
CHAR 8
NUM 4
CHAR 4
NUM 4
NUM 4
CHAR 5
CHAR 22
CHAR 7
CHAR 12
CHAR 30
CHAR 5
NUM 4
CHAR 1
NUM 4
CHAR 3
CHAR 3
CHAR 1
NUM 4
                                              54
                                              125
                                              97
                                              3
                                              142

                                              101
                                              146
                                              63
                                              10
                                              159
                                              18
                                              137
                                              133
                                              17
                                              89
                                              7

                                              0
                                              48
                                              93
       REPLICATE TYPE
       SAMPLING ROUND
       SALINITY [PPT]
       SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
       MAXIMUM PERCENT COVERAGE BY
       SAV
       SECCHI DEPTH [M]
       CBP SEGMENT CODE
       MD/DNR  SITE  IDENTIFIER
       COLLECTING AGENCY
       NOAA/NODC TAXONOMIC CODE
       SPECIES  COMMON NAME
       MD/DNR  SITE  CODE
       TOTAL DEPTH AT STATION
       TIDE
       SAMPLING TIME [HHMM]
       COLLECTING AGENCY (NMFS) SPECIES
       CODE
       WIND DIRECTION
       WIND SPEED CODE
       WATER TEMPERATURE pEG C]
4. Excerpts from the documentation and contents
list from the Adult Striped Bass Survey data set

DS*| DATA SET NAME
 MDSTBASS.SSD

TI*| PROJECT TITLE
Maryland Striped Bass Research

PC | PROJECT COST AND DATES WHEN STUDY WAS
CONDUCTED

Cost:      Study Dates: November 1981 - October 1982
               October 1982 - June 1983
               November 1983 -October 1984
               November 1984 -October 1985
               July 1985 - March 1986
               January 1986  - June 1987
               July 1987 - September 1988
AB* |  ABSTRACT (Description of project, including purpose,
objectives, hypothesis, results, and conclusions)

From November 1981 to December 1984 the commercial
striped bass fishery was sampled for age, size and sex composition
and catch per unit effort aboard cooperating commercial fishing
vessels.

From spring 1982 to spring 1989 fishery independent stock
assessment studies were  conducted  in the upper Bay, the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, and the Choptank River
spawning areas with standardized drift gill net arrays.  The
Potomac River was also sampled from spring 1986 to spring
1989.

From January 1985 to December 1989 Fishery independent
stock assessment studies were conducted in the main Bay and
Choptank River during the fall and winter with standardized
anchor gill net arrays.

It  is  recommended that  the above  reports  be reviewed to
determine the variances  that occur between each year of
sampling before performing analysis.
48

-------
CONTENTS PROCEDURE
CONTENTS OF THE DATA SET MDSTBASS.SSD
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 108786     NUMBER OF VARIABLES: 39

#
31
7
10
36
37
1
2
8
27
39
4
3
30
17
19
18
20
21
22
5
26
32
11
12
13
14
15
25
6
24
38
28
29
16
23
34
9
35
33

VARIABLE
AGECLASS
AGENCY
AIRTEMP
BINTAG
BIOREMRK
BIOSTUDY
COLLECTR
DATE
FISHNO
FORKLEN
GEAR
HANG
MATURITY
MAXDEPTH
MESH
MINDEPTH
NETLNGTH
NETTYPE
NETWIDTH
NOAACODE
NUMFISH
OTOLTH
PH
SALINITY
SECCHI
SETNO
SETREMRK
SEX
SITE
SPCODE
SPWNCHK
TAGNO
TAGRT
TIME
TIMEOUT
TOTLEN
WATRTEMP
WGHT
YRCLASS
-—ALPHABETIC
TYPE LENGTH
CHAR 5
CHAR 4
NUM 8
CHAR 2
CHAR 2
CHAR 8
CHAR 3
CHAR 6
CHAR 3
NUM 8
CHAR 4
CHAR 2
CHAR 1
NUM 8
NUM 8
NUM 8
NUM 8
CHAR 1
NUM 8
CHAR 3
NUM 8
CHAR 2
NUM 8
NUM 8
NUM 8
CHAR 2
CHAR 3
CHAR 1
CHAR 3
CHAR 4
NUM 8
CHAR 6
CHAR 6
NUM 8
CHAR 4
NUM 8
NUM 8
NUM 8
CHAR 2
LIST OF VARIABLES AND ATTRIBUTES 	
POSITION
160
23
41
485
187
0
8
27
144
197
13
11
159
86
102
94
110
118
119
17
136
165
49
57
65
73
75
135
20
131
189
147
153
78
127
169
33
177
167
FORMAT


F3.






F4.



F3.
F5.2
F3.
F4.

F6.2

F4.

F4.1
F4.1
F4.1





F3.


F6.2

F4.
F3.
F5.

LABEL
AGECLASS
AGENCY
AIRTEMP
BINTAG
BIOREMRK
BIOSTUDY
COLLECTR
DATE
FISHNO
FORKLEN
GEAR
HANG
MATURITY
MAXDEPTH
MESH
MINDEPTH
NETLNGTH
NETTYPE
NETWIDTH
NOAACODE
NUMFISH
OTOLTH
PH
SALINITY
SECCHI
SETNO
SETREMRK
SEX
SITE
SPCODE
SPWNCHK
TAGNO
TAGRT
TIME
TIMEOUT
TOTLEN
WATRTEMP
WGHT
YRCLASS
                                                                      49

-------